Secretin and autism: a two-part clinical investigation

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2000Secretin and Autism: A Two-Part Clinical InvestigationMichael G. Chez,1,2 Cathleen P. Buchanan,1 Bradley T. Bagan,1 Michael S. Hammer,1Karla S. McCarthy,1 Irina Ovrutskaya,1 Caralynn V. Nowinski,1 and Zamia S. Cohen1
Recent anecdotal reports have touted the gastrointestinal (GI) hormone secretin as a treatmentmodality for autism, though there is little clinical evidence or literature to support its viability. Weundertook a two-part clinical trial to investigate these claims. Fifty-six patients (49 boys, 7 girls,mean age = 6.4 years, SD = 2.7) enrolled in an open-label trial of secretin, during which they re-ceived one injection of the hormone (2 IU/kg). All subjects were evaluated by their parents at base-line and follow-up visits (3–6 weeks later, M = 3.7, SD = 1.4 weeks) with Childhood Autism Rat-ing Scales (CARS). Thirty-four patients were labeled with Pervasive Developmental Disorder NotOtherwise Specified, and 22 met diagnostic criteria for Autistic Disorder. Forty-five patients wereconcurrently on other drug treatments. At follow-up, some reported minimal but potentially sig-nificant improvements including changes in GI symptoms, expressive and/or receptive languagefunction, and improved awareness and social interactions. No adverse effects were reported or ob-served. Subsequently, 17 of the most responsive patients from Study 1 began a double-blind trialthat also included 8 newly enrolled patients. Patients in this second study were alternatively en-tered into one of two groups and received injections of secretin or placebo with crossover at 4 weeks.Patients from Study 1 entered into Study 2 at an average of 6.5 (SD = 0.8) weeks after begin-ning Study 1. Results of both inquiries indicate that although treatment with secretin wasreported to cause transient changes in speech and behavior in some children, overall it producedfew clinically meaningful changes when compared to children given placebo injections.KEYWORDS: Secretin; autism.INTRODUCTION
eral of the domains investigated. Moreover, the authorsfailed to include a control group, and the study did not
Secretin, a gastrointestinal hormone traditionally
present any quantifiable data concerning changes in be-
used as a diagnostic tool in pancreatic function evalu-
havior or symptoms. Nonetheless, the authors proffered
ations, was recently reported to have a remarkable ef-
the notion that secretin may play a neuroactive role and
fect in reducing specific behavioral components of
speculated that it may have a direct effect on the cen-
autism (Horvath et al., 1998). However, that investi-
tral nervous system, including the hippocampus, cere-
gation was the only article published in a peer-reviewed
bellum, and temporoparietal cortex, an hypothesis that
scientific journal regarding the efficacy of this hor-
has garnered much debate and controversy.
mone: It documented outcome in only three children
Recent media attention sparked public interest in
and was replete with missing or insufficient data in sev-
secretin therapy; however, little is known at this timeto effectively render its anecdotal success a viable treat-
1 Pediatric Neurology, SC, Lake Forest Hospital, Lake Forest, Illi-
ment for autism. A letter to the editor of Journal of Childand Adolescent Psychopharmacology by Perry and Ban-
Address all correspondence to Michael G. Chez, Pediatric Neurol-
garu (1998) reported their clinical experience with six
ogy, SC, 800 Westmoreland Road, Suite 100, Lake Forest, Illinois60045; e-mail: mchezmd@interaccess.com
children administered secretin at their practice. Re-
0162-3257/00/0400-0087$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation
Chez et al.
garding changes in autistic symptoms, the authors stated
jects (34%). This percentage is slightly higher than that
that only one of the six children showed “clinically sig-
previously published (Volkmar & Nelson, 1990) yet
nificant” improvements in language and relatedness as
represents the subpopulation of patients we typically
reported by mother and therapist. Three others showed
evaluate (Chez & Buchanan, 1996, 1997; Chez,
“subtle changes” in the areas of language and related-
Buchanan, Zucker, & May, 1997; Chez, Buchanan,
ness. Another became more active and aggressive, while
Field-Chez, Loeffel, & Hammer, 1998).
another showed no improvement. In sum, Perry and
History of treatment with drug therapies used for
Bangaru cautioned that the effectiveness of secretin is
abnormal EEG was noted in 37 patients. Such treat-
“much more modest” than both the popular press and
ment protocols (e.g., Stefanatos, Grover, & Gellar,
1995) included past or concurrent use of valproic acid,
The present study was exploratory in scope and
valproic acid plus steroids, or steroids alone. Nine pa-
sought to objectively assess clinical efficacy following
tients also had a history of treatment with antidepres-
injection of secretin via alterations in the behavioral
sants (i.e., 5-HT reuptake inhibitors; e.g., Chugani et al.,
characteristics of autism in children who presented at
1999), and 9 patients were concurrently being treated
our clinic with prior diagnoses falling along the con-
with CNS stimulants (i.e., methylphenidate) to address
tinuum of autistic spectrum disorders (ASD; Happé and
long-standing hyperactivity. Changes in concurrent
Frith, 1991). Prior investigations have not thoroughly
medications were not allowed during secretin admin-
examined the nature or degree of potential response to
istration to ensure that potential clinical improvements
the gut hormone. We hypothesized that if changes in
were not due to alternative therapies. All parents com-
autistic symptomatology occurred in the manner pre-
pleted informed written consent, enabling their child to
viously described qualitatively by Horvath et al. (1998),
improvements should be easily detected in our samplevia a standardized autism rating scale.
Childhood Autism Rating Scales (CARS; Schopler
Reichler, & Renner, 1988) were completed by parentsat baseline and postinjection office visits (follow-up
duration of 3–6 weeks, M = 3.7 weeks, SD = 1.4). Ac-
Fifty-six children (49 boys, 7 girls, mean age =
cording to its authors, the CARS was designed as a rat-
6.4 years, SD = 2.7) were enrolled in the study. All pa-
ing system for identification of behavioral symptoms,
tients were self-referred and met diagnostic criteria for
for research purposes, and for classification purposes
PDDNOS (34 patients—299.80) or Autistic Disorder
by replacing subjective clinical judgments with objec-
(22 patients—299.0) (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric
tive and quantifiable ratings based on direct behavioral
Association, 1994). All patients were previously as-
observation. It is divided into 15 subcategories, each
sessed by one of several local licensed clinical psy-
scored by increments of 0.5 points on a scale of 1 through
chologists and diagnosis was confirmed by the primary
4 which are cumulatively added resulting in a total score
author at intake. Through our clinical experience we be-
ranging from 15 to 60. The rating scale for total scores
lieve that our sample represents a diverse cross-section
is then divided into three classifications: Nonautistic
of patients typically seen by our pediatric neurology
(15–30), Mildly/Moderately autistic (30.5–36), and Se-
practice, including a wide range of age, symptoms, and
verely Autistic (36.5–60). Therefore, a lower total score
behavioral presentations. Table I shows the descriptive
and demographic information for all patients who par-
Although the scale was intended to be completed
by a clinician and parent in an interview format, we
A history of chronic gastrointestinal (GI) distress
adapted its format for use as a blind rating scale for each
(i.e., constipation, loose stools, diarrhea, or vomiting)
of the baseline and follow-up ratings. We asked that the
concurrent with or preceding the onset of autistic fea-
same parent complete the scale each time for the sake
tures occurred in 33 children (59%), whereas normal
of consistency and homogeneity in assessment and that
GI history was seen in 23 subjects (41%). Twenty-four
they fill it out with regards to the best behavior wit-
hour EEG findings were available for 49 subjects, re-
nessed during the time between office visits.
vealing abnormal EEG with primarily intermittent
We designated a 6-point improvement in ratings
sleep-activated centrotemporal sharp waves or spike
as indicative of a “clinically significant” change be-
waves in 31 subjects (63%) and normal EEG in 18 sub-
cause, by virtue of the instrument’s design, a change
Secretin and Autism Table I. Description of 56 Patients in Study IaChez et al.Table I. (Continued)a GI Hx indicates a history remarkable for GI problems. F/U represents the time (weeks) between the initial secretin injection and the follow-
up office visit. Bold represents patients whose baseline CARS scores fell in the Severely Autistic range. Italics represent 13 patients whoseCARS scores changed by 6 points or greater, representing a clinically significant change. b 17 patients who also participated in Study 2.c 3 patients whose scores met the ≥ 6 point change, but who did not originally fall into the Severely Autistic range.
of 6 points or more reflects a change in diagnostic
classifications in children who fall in the midrange
The CARS total scores for the entire group
“moderately autistic” category. Such a change may
showed a statistically significant improvement from
be considered a liberal definition of improvement
baseline to follow-up (Baseline M = 36.5, SD = 6.4;
since it represents only a 10–15% improvement over
Follow-up M = 33.2, SD = 5.4; t (55) = 5.67, p <. 01).
Further inspection of the individual CARS categories
Physicians or nurses completed detailed clinical
showed that statistically significant improvements (a
assessments of GI function, eye contact, expressive
conservative alpha adjustment of p < .01 for multiple
speech, and receptive language using a standardized
comparisons) occurred specifically in Relating to People,
questionnaire previously implemented by our practice
Imitation, Emotional Response, Object Use, Adapta-
for the purpose of tracking patients over time in inves-
tion to Change, Visual Response, Listening Response,
tigational drug studies. Finally, parents noted changes
Taste/Touch/Smell, Activity Level, and Verbal Com-
in eye contact, interpersonal relations, self-stimulatory
munication. Areas that were not significantly different
behavior, bowel movement consistency, toy play, ex-
from baseline to follow-up included Level of Intel-
pressive language/verbalizations, receptive language,
lect, Fear or Nervousness, Body Use, and Nonverbal
and overall behavior with observational diaries.
However, when improvement is viewed in terms
of clinical significance, which we designated as achange of 6 points or greater, frequency distributions
In accord with the dosage reported by Horvath
among children take on a different meaning. Figure 1
et al. (1998), all children received 2 IU of secretin (Fer-
shows each child’s raw score changes from baseline
ring Laboratories, Inc.) per kilogram of body weight
to follow-up on the CARS. It is important to note that
intravenously over a period of 1 to 2 minutes. All chil-
10 of the 13 patients with changes of 6 points or
dren were observed for 1 hour post injection. No al-
greater originally were classified in the Severely Autis-
lergic reactions occurred. Parents of patients were
tic category. Moreover, it is apparent that while 13
billed during this study for the cost of secretin, since
children had clinically meaningful changes, the ma-
experimental investigations of such a nature are not
jority (n = 32) had changes in the 1.0- to 5.5-point
range. Two children showed no change, and 9 chil-dren had profiles rated as “worse” (range: -0.5 to -11).
Parental diaries of children who were rated as “no
Data were analyzed using the SPSS Statistical
change” or “worse” were notable for comments re-
Package version 6.1. All t tests were two-tailed and
garding increased hyperactivity in the days immedi-
were run as either independent samples when groups
ately following the injections. These were not children
were compared or pairwise for within-subjects com-
who had originally entered the study on methylphenidate.
parisons. When indicated, a conservative alpha was
Other adverse effects noted by parents generally re-
adopted to control for the inflated effects of multiple
lated to increased agitation, decreased focusing, and
diminished responsiveness to others.Secretin and Autism Fig. 1. This graph illustrates the change in CARS scores from baseline (M = 36.5, SD = 6.4) to follow-up (M = 33.2. SD = 5.4) in Study 1. Aver-age duration of follow-up = 3.7 weeks (SD = 1.4). Positive numbers represent raw score improvements; negative scores represent decline orworsening of autistic symptoms. Two patients showed no change (indicated by empty bars). Only 13 of 56 patients demonstrated changes suf-ficient (≥ 6 points) to change diagnostic categories.
In addition, other parents reported minor im-
were rated as the most severe at the start of the study.
provements in GI function and eye contact in 19 cases
Certainly, we did not observe any instances of dramatic
(34%), improvements in expressive speech in 30 cases
improvement with regard to explosions of speech or
(54%), and receptive speech improvements in 15 cases
other autistic characteristics as previously highlighted
(27%). GI improvements noted were “more consis-
in the popular press and media. Although the change
tent,” “more formed,” “less constipated,” and “firmer
from an average baseline CARS score of 36.5 (SD =
stools.” Gains in expressive speech included use of
6.4) to a follow-up score of 33.2 (SD = 5.4) was sta-
more words, more complete sentences, and more spon-
tistically significant, this difference did not meet cri-
taneous speech, while receptive speech improvements
teria of ³6 point improvement necessary to conclude
included improved ability to follow complex com-
that significant changes occurred in these patients.
mands and greater responsiveness. The improvements
When statistically broken down by domain, no sin-
noted in all of these categories were transient, and
gle outcome category dramatically changed at the time
lasted approximately 3 to 7 days. GI function and eye
of retest, suggesting that the significant overall change
contact were reportedly worse in one case, and ex-
was an artifact of more subtle trends across categories.
pressive speech was worse in a separate case. Ac-
To further investigate the potential benefits of secretin
cording to parental report, the remaining children did
and to examine whether the statistically significant im-
not display any changes in GI function, eye contact,
provements noted above were due to rater bias or true
expressive speech, or receptive speech. The clinical
drug effect, we selected a subgroup of children who had
interview and parental diaries were also noteworthy
perceived improvements in Study 1. This subject selec-
for “improved awareness,” “improved social inter-
tion was intended to maximize the probability of de-
action,” “more affectionate,” “better play/activity level,”
tecting a difference in a placebo-controlled crossover
study. We predicted that second injections would mag-nify and enhance the subtle changes observed from thefirst injections, if the hypothesis of Horvath et al. (1998)
Discussion
The results from Study 1 indicate that if improve-
ments are observed in autistic features when patients
are treated with secretin, they are most likely to be seen
when a child falls in the more severe range at baseline,a phenomenon which may also be viewed as regression
Twenty-five children (22 boys, 3 girls) with an
to the mean (Maris, 1998). We make this conclusion
average age of 6.0 years (SD = 2.4) enrolled in the
based upon the finding that 77% of our children who
double-blind crossover clinical trial. Some of these pa-
showed any improvement on the CARS were those who
tients completed the protocol from Study 1 and chose
Chez et al.
to continue with the second phase of the investigation
Table II. Study 2: Group Averages for Childhood Autism Rating
due to perceived benefit. These “responders” from
Study 1 were classified by CARS scores and parental
reports. These subjects represent a biased sample of pa-tients from Study 1. They began Study 2 an average of
6.5 (SD = 0.8) weeks after beginning Study 1.Total group
Thirteen of these patients had an unremarkable GI
history. The remaining patients noted some history of
(secretin,
GI problems, the most prevalent being diarrhea and
placebo)
loose stools (9/25). Ten patients (40%) had abnormal
EEGs in the past. Expressive language, receptive lan-
(placebo, secretin)
guage, and eye contact were evaluated on an individ-ual basis for improvement because of the wide varia-
a Average CARS scores for all patients in Study 2. Note the minimal
difference in mean scores following either placebo or secretin.b p £ .05, baseline vs. secretin.
Patients were selected to enter into either Group A
from the table, the average CARS ratings for groups
or Group B based on an alternating schedule at entry.
were remarkably similar for children from Baseline to
Group A (n = 13) received an intravenous injection of
Follow-up, regardless of the injection type. There were
secretin (2 IU/kg) at the baseline visit, and an injection
not any statistically significant overall differences be-
of placebo (normal saline) at the 4-week follow-up.
tween groups at 4 weeks, t (24) = -0.24, p = .81, or 8
Group B (n = 12) patients received the injections in the
weeks, t (24) = 1.17, p = .25. Similarly, only about half
reverse order. One child was lost to follow-up from Group
of the parents of children enrolled in this study were
B and did not return to the office for the second in the
able to correctly identify the order of the injections due
series of injections. During this phase of the investiga-
to their observations of the patients’ behavior (12/25),
tion, parents were billed a one-time fee which covered
indicating chance responding. Patients in both groups
the cost of the secretin and investigators’ time for both
did not experience any medically or neurologically ad-
arms of the crossover trial. The group designation was
verse effects after either injection. One child was noted
unknown to both physicians and patients, as the encoded
to become flushed a few minutes after injection, which
patient records were kept in a database to which only the
registered nurse (K.M.) and technician (B.B.) had access.
Group A (secretin, placebo) did not show any sta-
tistically significant group differences in CARS scores
following secretin injection (Baseline to 4 weeks), t (12)
Detailed neurologic interviews, clinical assess-
= -0.59, p = .57. Additionally, parental diaries were
ments, and CARS forms were completed at the baseline,
notable for adverse effects such as decreased attention
4-week, and 8-week visits. Physical examination looked
span, loss of social skills, and increased aggression.
for any new deficits or gains in neurological function
After the saline injection, several children continued to
that could have resulted from secretin administration.
evidence slight worsening of symptoms, although in-
Interim changes in eye contact, speech, and language
dividual observations were not statistically significant,
function were reviewed, along with investigator-patient
t (12) = -0.31, p = .76, when viewed as group means.
interaction. Parents were asked to fill out the CARS
Clinical interviews for Group A revealed 5 children
scales based on their child’s best behavior during the
with improvements in expressive language and with im-
time between visits. They were later asked to guess the
proved GI function after the secretin injection. There
order of the injections based on observations of their
were not any reports of improved eye contact or re-
child’s behavior before the code was broken at the final
ceptive language function. Following the placebo in-
office visit (8-week follow-up exam).
jection in Group A, there were three reports of improvedexpressive language and one report of improved GIfunction. Two parents noted improved eye contact, and
three noted improved receptive language.
Table II illustrates the average CARS scores for
Several parents of children in Group B noted slight
the entire cohort and Groups A and B. As may be seen
improvement in their diary notes following their first
Secretin and Autism
injection (saline), although this did not reach statisti-
blinded Study 2 did not substantiate even mild im-
cal significance, [t (11) = 0.59, p = .57] as a group for
provements in children. In summary, the behavioral pro-
the CARS. When administered secretin at the second
file of children following secretin injection at the dosage
injection, however, children were perceived by parents
recommended by Horvath et al., (1998) strongly re-
as improved, [t (11) = 2.39, p = .04] overall.
sembles that of a child following saline administration.
Following the secretin injection, parents of chil-
Furthermore, in the quest to identify a potential sub-
dren in Group B noted improvements in expressive lan-
class of responder, we were unable to find any associa-
guage (n = 7), GI function (n = 4), eye contact (n = 2),
tions between prior and current medications, age of
and receptive language (n = 3). Subsequent to the
onset, gender, GI symptoms, or other past medical
placebo in Group B, parents reported 2 improvements in
history to explain the differences between those who
expressive language, 1 improvement in GI function, and
showed optimal response and those who failed to bene-
1 improvement in eye contact. None of the parents noted
fit from the injections. Also, changes were not attributed
any changes in the receptive language category.
to alteration of other medication regimens since treat-ments were held constant over the course of the entireinvestigation.Discussion
Clearly, CARS rating scales are a crude form of
The results from Study 2 do not demonstrate any
evaluation. It was not designed to be a sensitive mea-
significant difference in CARS scores in patients treated
sure to detect subtle changes in autistic behavior, so we
with secretin versus patients treated with saline, though
are cautiously basing our conclusions on statistical eval-
the majority of the cohort for this phase of the trial was
uation of CARS scores. In order to detect those subtle
purposefully selected through biased methods. For the
changes, we need to develop more sensitive methods of
most part, only those parents who perceived benefit after
evaluating autistic spectrum disorders. Future research
Study 1 chose to continue with the protocol. The only
way to eliminate bias in their evaluation of secretin was
Statistical evaluation of the data from CARS may
to blind everyone involved with regard to the treat-
not fairly substitute information garnered from parental
ment. Yet the results show that the potential benefits
diaries. We cannot rule out the fact that some parents
reported after an initial injection of secretin mimic re-
were able to discriminate between the two injections, or
sults from a saline injection, which strongly suggests a
the parental reports of language, behavioral, and social
lack of clinical improvement provided by secretin. The
changes. Nonetheless, parents’ qualitative reports of
placebo effect, in traditional literature, has been reported
improvement were not consistently observed by the in-
to yield improvements in approximately 35% of the
vestigators during the follow-up office exams, nor were
cases (Kienle & Kiene, 1996). Since parents reported
they reflected in the quantitative rating scale.
the perceived changes instead of the subjects who ac-
At this time there are not enough data to suggest
tually received the injections, the placebo effect in this
any substantial benefit from secretin injections. Before
case may be better explained as an expectancy effect.
further time and expense are incurred, physiological
Expectancy theory maintains that conditioning trials
mechanisms and neural pathways involved in the pur-
produce placebo response expectancies, rather than ac-
ported neuroactive response to secretin should be the
tual placebo responses, and that the expectancies elicit
subject of future inquiry. Such considerations are es-
the responses (Montgomery & Kirsch, 1997).
pecially relevant considering the tremendous hetero-geneity of the autistic spectrum disorders. Our experi-ence has led us to conclude that additional research is
GENERAL DISCUSSION
needed to identify subtypes of children who may re-
The results of this two-part clinical investigation
spond to therapies aimed at targeting the gut–brain axis.
of secretin demonstrate that overt behavioral changes
There exists the potential to isolate a biochemical or
do not occur following the hormone injection in chil-
behavioral “clinical marker” that could help identify
dren who manifest symptoms of varying autistic sever-
those children who will benefit from this and other ther-
ity at baseline. Our data do not provide any evidence of
apies. Objective assessment of children is also war-
a treatment effect and are strengthened by the study de-
ranted to counter the expectancies that parents develop
sign which allowed each child to serve as his or her own
with any potential “cure” for their child’s disorder. Ad-
control in the crossover phase. The transient improve-
ditionally, contrasts of children undergoing efficacious
ments in behavioral symptoms noted by parents in Study
multiple drug regimens (e.g., combination valproic
1 may actually be the result of a reporting bias since the
acid and steroid therapy) in combination with secretin
Chez et al.
versus those maintained on secretin-only treatment
Chez, M. G., Loeffel, M., & Buchanan, C. (1998). Pulse high-dose
could serve as the focus of future study (Bardenstein
steroids as combination therapy with valproic acid in epilepticaphasia patients with pervasive developmental delay or autism.et al., 1998; Chez & Buchanan, 1996; Chez, Buchanan,
Annals of Neurology, 44, 539.
Field-Chez, et al., 1998; Chez, Buchanan, Loeffel, et
Chugani, D. C., Muzik, O., Behen, M., Rothermel, R., Janisse, J. J.,
al., 1998; Chez, Loeffel & Buchanan, 1998; Piloplys,
Lee, J., & Chugani, H. T. (1999). Developmental changes inbrain serotonin synthesis capacity in autistic and nonautistic
1994; Stefanatos et al., 1995; Trauner et al., 1997).
children. Annals of Neurology, 45, 287–295.
Happé, F., & Frith, U. (1991). Is Autism a pervasive developmental
disorder? How useful is the “PDD” label. Journal of Child Psy-REFERENCESchology and Psychiatry, 32, 1167–1168.
Horvath, K., Stefanatos, G., Sokolski, K. N., Watchel, R., Nabors,
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
L., & Tildon, J. T. (1998). Improved social and language skills
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
after secretin administration in patients with autistic spectrum
Bardenstein, R., Chez, M. G., Helfand, B. T., Buchanan, C. P., &
disorders. Journal of the Association for Academic Minority
Zucker, M. (1998). Improvement in EEG and clinical function
in pervasive developmental delay (PDD): Effect of valproic
Kienle, G. S., & Keine, H. (1996). Placebo effect and placebo con-
cept: a critical methodological and conceptual analysis of reports
Chez, M. G., & Buchanan, C. P. (1996). Clinical spectrum of patients
on the magnitude of the placebo effect. Alternative Therapies
referred for Landau-Kleffner syndrome previously diagnosed
in Health Medicine, 2 (6, 39–54)
with pervasive developmental delay or autism: EEG, HMPAO
Maris, E. (1998). Covariance adjustment vs. gain scores-revisited.
SPECT, and steroid response data. Neurology, 46, A115.Psychological Methods, 3, 309–327.
Chez, M. G., & Buchanan, C. P. (1997). Age of regression of lan-
Montgomery, G. H., & Kirsch, I. (1997). Classical conditioning and
guage and behavior in children referred for pervasive develop-
the placebo effect. Pain, 72, 107–113.
mental delay correlates with severity of epileptiform activity on
Perry, R., & Bangaru, B. S. (1998). Secretin and autism. Journal of
24-hour EEG. Epilepsia, 38, 50.Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 8, 247–248.
Chez, M., Buchanan, C., Zucker, M., & May, B. (1997). Value of 24
Plioplys, A. V. (1994). Autism: Electroencephalogram abnormalities
hour EEG versus routine EEG in detecting occult epileptiform
and clinical improvement with valproic acid. Archives of Pedi-
activity in children with pervasive developmental delay. Annalsatric and Adolescent Medicine, 148, 220–222.
Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R. (1988). The Childhood
Chez, M. G., Buchanan, C. P., Field-Chez, M., Loeffel, M. F., &
Autism Rating Scale: CARS. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psy-
Hammer, M. S. (1998). Treatment of electroencephalographic
epileptiform activity on overnight EEG studies in children with
Stefanatos, G. A., Grover, W., & Geller, E. (1995). Case study: Cor-
pervasive developmental disorder or autism: Defining similari-
ticosteroid treatment of language regression in pervasive de-
ties to the Landau-Kleffner syndrome. Journal of Developmen-
velopmental disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Childtal and Learning Disorders, 2, 217–229.and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1107–1111.
Chez, M., Buchanan, C., Loeffel, M., Field-Chez, M., Nowinski,
Trauner, D. A., Nabangchng, C., Ballantyne, A., & Tecoma, E. (1997).
C., Bardenstein, R., Hammer, M. (1998). Practical treatment
Developmental aphasia with epileptiform abnormalities on EEG:
with pulse dose corticosteroids in pervasive developmental
Clinical features and response to prednisone. Annals of Neurol-
delay or autistic patients with abnormal epileptiform sleep
EEG and language delay. In M. V. Perat (Ed.), New develop-
Volkmar, F. R., & Nelson, D. S. (1990), Seizure disorders in autism.ments in child neorology (pp. 695–698). Bologna, Italy: Mon-
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy-